Court has adjourned for the day

Prosecution suggests Margolis may have been on phone while overtaking

Mr Renvoize: “Your report is based upon Margolis only being able to see the corner curb of the island?”

PC Davey: “No, it’s the curb of the island.”

Mr Renvoize: “But Margolis says the first thing he sees is a pole, so it isn’t the case of him seeing the curb first.”

PC Davey: “Correct.”

Mr Renvoize: “Do you understand the point? You say the headlights would pick up the curb first? But it would be the sign wouldn’t it?”

PC Davey: “If the sign was reflective, then yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “You’ve put forward a theory which is the reason this collision happened is because Margolis didn’t see the island. What about if he was playing on his phone at the time of him overtaking?”

PC Davey: “Firstly, there’s no evidence he was using his phone. I cannot imagine why a driver in a million years would be overtaking a vehicle going above the speed limit and playing on their phone at the same time.”

15:55

Witness agrees overtake was not 'terribly sensible'

Mr Renvoize: “At the point Margolis is going to end up pulling in, he’s going to be very close to the entrance and filter lane to the BP garage?”

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “Would you agree with me that again that’s not a terribly sensible manoeuvre?”

PC Davey: “I can see why someone would say that.”

15:51

Overtaking between junctions isn't 'very sensible'

Mr Renvoize: “The overtaking is conducted after Margolis has passed a sign for a staggered junction, yes?”

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “Would you agree with me that overtaking between two junctions isn’t a very sensible manouvre?”

PC Davey: “Absolutely.”

Mr Renvoize: “In your judgement, from the time he overtakes, would he have time to stop if someone had came out of that junction?”

PC Davey: “That would be dependent on a number of factors. I don’t want to be evasive, but there are so many different variables.”

15:49

Keep left sign would not have blended into background

Mr Renvoize: “If the hood lamp was working and the keep left sign was reflective of lights, should a driver have seen that?”

PC Davey: “Certainly a driver could see it, yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “These signs - are they standard manufacturing?”

PC Davey: “I believe so.”

Mr Renvoize: “Well, when you put forward a proposition that Margolis didn’t see the light because it blends into the background, but the keep left sign is a different kettle of fish, how is it that Margolis wouldn’t have seen that keep left sign, in your judgement?”

PC Davey: “I can understand the driver not having seen it, whilst overtaking there are different demands placed upon a driver.”

Mr Renvoize: “If you were looking and concentrating on the road straight ahead, you would see this blue sign illuminated, not by your lights but by the HGV lights?”

PC Davey: “Again you may do, you may not.”

15:45

'Mystery light source' in photo could be island light

Mr Renvoize: “Both the headlamp and the keep left arrow should have been visible to a motorist paying attention should they not?”

PC Davey: “Yes.”

The jury is now looking at a photo of the road with the globe lamp light on.

Mr Renvoize: “What do you think the globe lamp is?”

PC Davey: “A light shining on the road.”

Mr Renvoize: “From where?”

PC Davey: “I couldn’t tell you where. If the hood lamp was working, I would not expect it to be that bright on the road surface.”

Mr Renvoize: “So we just have this mystery light source on this photo?”

PC Davey: “Yeah, well it may well be that is is part of the globe lamp.”

15:41

'Position of the light is in the same position as the petrol station behind it'

Mr Renvoize: “Why would the blue keep left arrow, illuminated by a hood lamp, blend into the garage?”

PC Davey: “The globe lamp is positioned on the same pole, at night time it’s a completely different perspective.

Mr Renvoize: “If you see ahead of you a blue sign with a keep left arrow illuminated by something, that would’ve blended into the background of the petrol station?”

PC Davey: “It may have done, it may not have done.”

Mr Renvoize: “This is a blue reflective keep left sign. Are they normally or ever affixed to garages?”

PC Davey: “Of course not.”

Mr Renvoize: “They are often seen by motorists aren’t they, and motorists will know full well what that sign means?

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “What does it mean?”

PC Davey: “To keep left.”

Mr Renvoize: “So your ascertain as to why Margolis did not see this island is based in the fact that the headlamp wasn’t illuminated and the keep left sign not reflective?”

PC Davey: “It’s based on the alignment with the petrol station, and the idea that the position of the lamp is in the same position as the petrol station behind it.”

15:37

Prosecutor says witness could not know effect of light

Mr Renvoize: “But you’ve never seen it [the globe light]. You actually don’t know what the effect is, and you are making a judgement about the alignment of that lamp with the BP garage?”

PC Davey: “Yes, I’m trying to establish a reason why Margolis didn’t see it was there.”

Mr Renvoize: “Exactly. If the light were working and it was illuminating that blue keep left sign, would that alter your conclusion?”

PC Davey: “No, it wouldn’t. It would still appear to be in that forecourt behind [of the BP garage].”

15:35

'No doubt' light would have merged with BP garage

Mr Renvoize: “You have never seen the globe lamp, that was destroyed in the accident, in situ?”

PC Davey: “No.”

Mr Renvoize: “Do I therefore understand it that you are doing your best to look at the position of those lights and consider whether it is a possibility that the light merges?”

PC Davey: “There’s no doubt that the light merges once you position yourself into the oncoming lane. It’s very easy to lose that globe light within the BP Garage behind.”

15:34

More on the confusion between island light and BP garage

Mr Renvoize: “His honour has asked you whether if you’re travelling towards a hazard, and you can see that hazrd, and you are going more slowly, are you in a better position to deal with that hazard?”

PC Davey: “Yes of course.”

Mr Renvoize: “And so the fact of Margolis not being able to see this hazard is predicated entirely upon this basis of the merging of the globe lamp with the BP garage?”

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “So he will not have seen, in your view, that there was that traffic island?”

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “What is the position, as he approaches the globe lamp? So he’s coming close, he can see there is a lamp in the distance, as you get closer it will become apparent that that lamp is closer to you than the garage?”

PC Davey: “Erm, yeah I’d agree with that.”

15:27

Witness says Margolis wouldn't have seen island until headlights illuminated it

Mr Renvoize: “Would he have had, travelling at 50mph, a longer distance to perceive the hazard, process it, and react it, than he would have had travelling at 70mph?”

PC Davey: “At 70mph the car will be 62.6metres away in two seconds. At 50mph, in two seconds, it’s 44.7m away.”

Mr Renvoize: “It’s dependent upon at what point he sees the hazard, and you take the view that there is a closest point he will be able to see the hazard, when his headlights illuminate it. You say that’s a maximum of 50 metres?”

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “On full beam?”

PC Davey: “No. Normal headlights.”

15:24

Questioning on Margolis' speed

Mr Renvoize: “You now accept he was travelling an average of 60mph, and then shortly before the collision, 69mph.”

PC Davey: “Correct.”

Mr Renvoize: “You have said in your view there was nothing Margolis could do to avoid the island?”

PC Davey: “Correct.”

Mr Renvoize: “If he had been travelling within the speed limit, would he have had more time to react?”

PC Davey: “No, such a response time remains the same no matter what speed you’re travelling at. It’s still the same time period, but the distance you travel during that period changes.”

15:20

Hatched surface was increased to give drivers 'leeway'

Now for questions from prosecutor Mr Renvoize.

Mr Renvoize: “What was the purpose for increasing that hatched surface?”

PC Davey: “To provide a narrower separation between opposing lines of traffic- to give a little bit of leeway to drivers.”

Mr Renvoize: “It is put there as a safety feature, is it not?”

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “You suggested Margolis was initially travelling at about 55mph, you have changed that position?

PC Davey: “Yes.”

Mr Renvoize: “Do any of your conclusions alter as a result of you accepting that Margolis was going considerably quicker than that?”

PC Davey: “No.”

15:14

'No time' to take action before hitting island

Jarivs: “If at some point, Margolis was able to perceive the island ,was there anything he could do to avoid colliding with it?”

PC Davey: “By that point he’s already made his change in steering, he’s made his decision to come back in, at the point the island first becomes illuminated by his headlights, there isn’t enough time available for him to take any action before hitting it.”

15:13

'Nothing' to warn drivers of traffic island

Jarvis: “Taking into account everything, what’s your opinion as to the proposition that there is no explanation as to why Margolis didn’t see the island?”

PC Davey: “The island has no reflective bollards - the thing that as a driver you would expect.

“Without those, you’re left with an area in darkness with a light at a similar height to the forecourt behind it.

“Margolis hasn’t seen it and wouldn’t then see it until it was within his headlight range.

Jarvis: “Is there anything on the road that warns him about the traffic island?”

PC Davey: “No, nothing at all. No sign, no marking, anything at all.”

15:11

'Very easy' to see how island light could be mistaken for garage

Jarvis: “Why do you say mistaking the island light with the garage is a possibility, in the expert report?”

PC Davey: “Because it just blends in to the background.

“It was very easy to see how it could be misunderstood that the globe light formed part of the garage behind it.

“Once a driver moves out into the other lane, then the alignment of the central lining of the garage comes more pronounced.”

15:10

'No way of knowing' position of keep left arrow on traffic island pole

Jarvis: “We know there was a keep left arrow on the traffic island pole, we don’t know how it was angled at the time?”

PC Davey: “Correct. Firstly, many vehicles had collided into the island before the incident we’re dealing with.

“Equally when lorries or buses travel past their wing mirrors may overhang. We just don’t know. There was no way of knowing the position of the arrow at that time.”

Jarvis: “Let’s assume we know the arrow was in the right place and the hoodlamp was on, what assistance would that give compared to bollards?”

PC Davey: “A hoodlamp may mask the reflective side of it that your headlights may cause - it’s difficult to say though.”

Jarivs: “The hoodlamp is now higher - what difference does that make now for a driver?”

PC Davey: “The difference now is that it’s clearly much higher than the BP garage.”

15:08

Attention 'on overtaking' rather than sign

Jarvis: “The ‘staggered junction’ sign, time available to see it knowing there’s a lorry in front of him , what’s your view on that?”

PC Davey: “We know the lorry speed is generally around 50mph at that time, if he’s a couple of seconds behind, then the sign post isn’t very far off the verge so Margolis may have seen it a fraction, a second.

“The opportunity for him to see that sign is limited to the distance and time he’s following the lorry itself - about 2 seconds. And that’s reliant of him looking at that direction at that specific time, and we know his attention is on overtaking at this stage.

“The time the sign becomes visible to him, his attention is probably elsewhere, I suggest.”

15:02

There should have been 'at least' two deflection arrows, forensic collision investigator says

Jarvis: “What do you say about the regulations and whether you should have deflection arrows on a road?”

PC Davey: “You should have deflection arrows if there’s an obstruction in the road - in this case we have a clear obstruction here.

“There should be at least two of them on the road. This would mean that if the driver is on the wrong side of the road approaching the traffic island, there would be two arrows telling them to get back onto the right side of the road.”

14:57

Central island was 'less obvious' a hazard without bollards

Jarvis: “There were no bollards on the night of the collision, what’s your opinion about not having bollards on this sort of traffic island?”

PC Davey: “The bollards give drivers information, allow them to know there’s an obstacle that is clear and obvious.

“Without the bollards, even in daylight that becomes a less obvious hazard in the middle of the road. At night time, that’s going to be even more difficult to observe.

“At night time, the bollards are usually illuminated or they might be reflective.”

14:54

'No safety benefits' to changes in road markings

Jarvis: “So in 2008, what happened to the road?”

PC Davey: “The deflection arrows have been taken away, as has the solid whilte line on approach to the central island.”

Jarvis: “What’s your view of that change, your opinion about it?”

PC Davey: “The way it was set out in 2007, the double white line system, would be the safest way of preventing anyone from overtaking. There were two painted arrows on the road surfaces telling you you’ve got something to look out for.

“Now, there’s an area that allows people to overtake and that doesn’t seem the safest way for this road to be set out.

“I can’t see any safety benefits whatsoever for making these changes. This doesn’t seem to make any reasonable sense to me.

“In 2007 you prevent any potential for the driver being on the wrong side of the road, and to me, that’s what you need to have.

“The only safety benefit is that you’re creating a wider gap between opposing lines of traffic - to allow for any small errors in drivers’ judgement and any more leeway before they have an accident.

“This road is quite wide, because it was a dual carriageway. It’s a major road, it’s not a small country road.”

14:49

Discussion on what deflection arrows mean

Jarvis: “I’m going to move onto asking about the road markings now, what do the deflection arrows [on the road in the past] tell the driver?”

PC Davey: “That there’s an obstruction so to return back to the other side of the road.”

The obstructions are the double white line system and then the central island.

14:43

CCTV being shown

The jury is being shown more CCTV from the day of the crash.

It is the same footage from the HGV as shown earlier in the day, but the CCTV has been flipped around.

14:41

Road surface 'damp but not saturated'

Oliver Jarvis, defending, asks: “Can you see rain on the CCTV?”

Davey: “Yes.”

Jarvis: “Are you able to judge how heavy the rain is?”

Davey: “I don’t believe you can, from the CCTV. There is rain, but I wouldn’t suggest very heavy rain. The road surface was damp but not saturated with standing water.”

14:38

Defence calls first witness

The first witness for the defence will be Peter Davey, also a forensic collision investigator.

14:38

Jury asks about the weather when lorry was overtaken

A jury note has asked about the severity of the weather when Margolis overtook the lorry.

14:36

End of PC Master's evidence

Judge Cooper: “So it would have taken 4.6 seconds for the Volvo to travel between those two points?”

PC Masters: “Yes.”

That’s the end of PC Master’s evidence - and the case for the crown.

14:35

Volvo's average speed 60mph

Judge Cooper: “Is there any point, as far as you know, where the road hatching arrangement is broken between the dual carriageway and the traffic island?”

PC Masters: “Yes from memory, there are a couple of junctions earlier on.”

Judge Cooper: “The Volvo’s average speed between Mill Lane and the traffic island is 60mph?”

PC Masters: “Yes.”

Judge Cooper: “Was the overtaking going on at this phase, from Mill Lane?”

PC Masters: “Yes.”

14:31

Judge tries to establish what a driver can see when behind a lorry

Judge Cooper asks PC Masters: “If a car is following one to two seconds behind a lorry, then the lorry is one to two seconds ahead...if you’re two seconds behind a lorry, are you unable to see anything beside the lorry?”

PC Masters: “This would be dependent on where the position of the car is, this will determine how much the driver can or cannot see.”

Judge Cooper: “In relation to the deflection markers, do you know what the position is for the road markings at the time the dual carriageway comes to an end?

PC Masters: “There’s a hatched area right up to the collision scene.”

14:22

Difficult to say when Margolis would have seen sign

Jarvis: “The time available for Margolis to see the staggered junction sign...because he’s travelling one to two seconds behind the lorry, is that the time he would have had available to see the sign?”